Six candidates are vying for four open seats on Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization Board, in a race that has seen one slate of decidedly pro-tenant candidates boast numerous endorsements and a large war chest, while their landlord-leaning opponents lag — both in terms of endorsements and cash.

It’s an important, if not widely covered race: Established in 1980, the Rent Board controls a $4.5 million budget, and is composed of nine elected commissioners, which each draw a monthly salary of between $50 and $500. The Board is responsible for the day to day oversight and management of the city’s rent control ordinance, and moreover, those elected this election cycle will likely have a substantial influence the appointment of a new executive director, among other policy initiatives.

One of the four members of the tenant-leaning, self-dubbed CALI ticket — an acronym made from the first names of the candidates — is an incumbent, Alejandro Soto-Vigil. The others, Igor Tregub, Leah Simon-Weisberg and Christina Murphy, are newcomers, though not to housing as an issue. Simon-Weisberg helped write two other rent control measures on the ballot in the Bay Area, Murphy has been involved in South Berkeley community housing for years, and former Rent Board Commissioner Tregub is on the city’s Zoning Adjustment Board.

On the other side, Nate Wollman and incumbent Judy Hunt have adopted Fairness Accountability Integrity and Respect (FAIR) to describe their bid. Wollman is a property manager, who says that his experience in the industry gives him an edge over “career political candidates who are vetting for any positions they can get their hands on.” And for her part Hunt, an incumbent, touts her experience helming a non-profit and small property owner.

Of the ballot measures that are on the table, The CALI bloc is in favor of Measure U1 — in opposition to the competing DD, which is backed by landlords, they say. The logic is simple Soto-Vigil said at a recent candidate panel: after crunching the numbers U1 would create eight new affordable units a year, whereas DD would generate three.

Both Hunt and Wollman supported Measure DD, the competing measure backed by landlords. Hunt called Measure U1 deceptive, referring to a court challenge, and praised the citizen advisory panel proposed by Measure DD.

On Measure AA, which seeks to increase the required payout for an owner move-in, and prevent such move-ins during the school year for families with children, the candidates were also split. The CALI ticket supports the measure. The FAIR ticket opposes the measure because, as Wollman put it, “If it’s your house, you should be able to move home.”

Political scientist: Voters rely more on group attachments than policy positions

But despite public panels and lively discussion over policy, counter-intuitively, candidates’ actual policy positions are not what most voters base a decision on. According to San Francisco State University professor of political science Jason McDaniel, despite the focus on policy issues in campaign materials and public forums, most voters actually use another calculus to determine a person’s vote: group attachments.

Group attachments, McDaniel says, are social criteria such as ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. Voters pick up on those factors as a kind of code for the candidate’s perceived ideology — renters, for example, being perceived as more favorable on renter issues. Endorsements are included, he says.

The self-titled “CALI Slate” has more than 40 endorsements listed on its website, ranging from a BART Board Director, several Berkeley elected officials, and a swath of organizations associated with tenant and labor issues. And the coalition has also trumpeted a nod from Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.). Berkeleyside was not able to reach Sanders for comment.

City councilman and candidate for mayor Jesse Arreguín told Berkeleyside that the CALI slate was, “the most qualified to serve on the Rent Stabilization Board. Each brings many years of experience not only serving tenants but also working on rent control policy.”

Councilman Max Anderson echoed Arreguin’s sentiment — that the CALI ticket has experience with administrating the Board with tenants and landlords in mind.

Though not listed on the CALI ticket website, Councilman Darryl Moore told Berkeleyside he is endorsing Murphy. “She seems like a very good advocate for the people she works with … with homeless, with people who have trouble finding housing in Berkeley.”

Moore also says he is backing Tregub because he did well during his prior stint on the board.

On the FAIR ticket, Moore is backing Hunt because he’s liked her work on the Rent Board in the past, and says that diversity and experience as a small property owner are important.

The FAIR ticket of Hunt and Wollman lists just over 10 endorsements on its campaign site, including endorsements from three sitting City Council members: Moore, Councilwoman Susan Wengraf and Councilman Laurie Capitelli. FAIR is also endorsed by the Berkeley Democratic Club. (As noted above, Moore is only endorsing one member of that slate.)

Wengraf supports both Hunt and Wollman but says that she endorses people, not tickets.

Unlike some of the other contests that have seen, for example, national real estate interests backing candidates with tens of thousands of dollars in soft money, the race for the rent board has been a relatively inexpensive one. Thus far, no interest groups have filed documents with the city declaring cash support for any candidate vying for a rent board seat.

As a result, it’s been a relatively inexpensive race: the self-proclaimed progressive bloc has raised the largest combined war chest of $15,090, according to campaign documents filed with the city. Their opponents Hunt and Wollman have raised a combined total of $4,925. Murphy and Simon-Weisberg, from the progressive bloc, have been spending the most aggressively with about $2,400 each, according to filings that cover activities through Sept. 24.

Berkeley’s “monster” ballot. Photo: Citizen reporter

But, even though the war chests are small, the race is not without mudslinging.

Wollman took issue with the progressive block using berkeleyrentboard.org as its campaign web address, telling Berkeleyside that it unfairly made it appear as though the group was some kind of official city-backed group. And he openly speculated on the tactics used by the progressive bloc to gain the much-trumpeted endorsement of Bernie Sanders.

In a telephone interview, Soto-Vigil cast a shadow over Capitelli’s endorsement of Hunt and Wollman, suggesting the now-mayoral candidate had said years ago he favored abolishing rent control.

Capitelli said — after publication — he has never been in favor of abolishing rent control.

“20 years ago…with Steve Barton (Berkeley’s former housing director), we mused about the idea of a means-tested rent control program,” said Capitelli. “We tried but couldn’t figure out how to make it work. I never supported the abolition of rent control.”

Capitelli has said he favors amending the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which exempts buildings constructed after 1980 from rent control. It also allows landlords to raise rents to the market rate on rent-controlled units once tenants move out. Arreguín has said he wants to repeal Costa-Hawkins. It would take a vote of the legislature to do that.

Update, Oct. 24: This article has been updated to include a statement from Capitelli in which he says, contrary to Soto-Vigil’s assertion, he never favored abolishing rent control.

Most Commented

Thank you for pointing that out. We just got a comment from Capitelli and added it to the story. He said he has never wanted to abolish rent control but did play around with some concepts about housing 20 years ago.

VKiefer

Soto-Vigil is at the forefront of policy research?! Are you serious?? Would you mind sharing this “policy?” Doing countless resolutions (just simply cut and pasted) for Kriss Worthington is not policy. And the rent board does not set, nor write “policy.” Our rent ordinance was set and passed by voters YEARS ago.

And you have what Igor sent out completely wrong! It was indeed a letter that slandered Sid Lakrireddy. Igor’s letter had nothing to do with a landlord/his landlord. Sid won his case in court!!!

Triumph The Insult Soap Dog

What I chose to use as pseudonym is not germane to this conversation. Let’s stay on topic please.

Now you statement in agreement with Alejandro on housing shows a lack of logic and reason used. It’s more emotional and feelings based driven than reality based.

I see people walking down the street to places. That does not mean that they have a right to car if they can’t afford one. One is not entitled to what everyone else has.

If you want something, you have to work for it. And a whole lot of the people you mentioned sleeping in doorways, under awnings and medians are not unemployable. They are not mentally ill or otherwise disabled either. Nor have they committed a the type of serious offense that might make finding employment a little tougher.

Not too long ago, my wife and I took a survey of hiring signs around the city in every commercial sector. We counted over 98 businesses with various types of employment opportunities ready to hire. They ranged from restaurant, retail, grocery and Drug Store opportunities as the dominate places hiring. But they were not limited to that either.

I’ve also spent time with a friend talking to the various homeless people within the city of Berkeley. And a whole lot of the people have decided that they are just “hanging out,” have decided to “check out of the capitalist system” or other non-serious reasons for not having become gainfully employed.

Thus, what I find most interesting about these types of people is that they believe they should be able to takeover tax payer funded public spaces for hours until end and get mad when private businesses refuse to let them use their place of business as a free lounging area. Which they seem to feel entitled to do so with help of people on the far-left.

There are many programs that can help these people get their resumes together, find a job, get in school to complete their education or gain a trade certificate paid for by federal grants. In fact, the Berkeley Adult school has the One-Stop Career Center designed to help the low income and the homeless get back on their feet. Which is interestingly only taken-up by mainly the immigrants from other countries and the low-income American born citizens who are trying to get themselves into a better place economically.

And when Rubicon (in downtown Berkeley) use to host the One-Stop Career Center, most of the homeless who came in there (from former employees statements on the subject matter) were constantly using their free internet access to do anything but job search or getting their affairs in order to be able to gain employment. Trust me, these folk know the resources that are available to them.

Thus, for a whole lot of these homeless folks, they just want to use the free services provided (food, water and internet access) not to support them in the means of trying to get themselves back on their feed. But as if they live in chateau de’ Berkeley.

That’s a problem, and people are increasingly growing tired of it. Most of us are willing to help people who are willing to help themselves. Yet, we don’t want to be funding people’s lifestyle choices.

Waiting for your excuses… I know you will be full of them…

Marcia Poole

What I have observed is that No on U1 and Yes on DD suddenly appeared in a Southside neighborhood in front of apartment houses owned by the Lakireddy extended family. Parker and Regent St. (Vero with Jay Lakireddy as the principal owner) have two, and other Lakireddy properties up and down Parker and Regent St have the signs. It makes me think that they are very supportive of DD, which would make me automatically vote against it. If they say No on U1, then I know it benefits the smaller landlords and I would vote for it.

Marcia Poole

Again, another person who slanders while signing with a pseudonym. I don’t understand why people are afraid to say things and sign their real name to their remarks.

I agree with Alejandro that housing is a right in a civilized society. When I see the people sleeping in doorways, under awnings, on medians, etc., I am totally alarmed that we, as a society, have come to this. How can you watch people live in worse conditions than refugees – no public bathrooms, no warmth or protection from the elements, no food, no water, no way to keep themselves and their clothing clean, no love or concern shown towards them? It degrades everyone when you let a person suffer like this and you say and do nothing.

Igor did not slander. He never said Sid Lakireddy was a criminal or that he had participated in the actions perpetrated by his uncle, Lakireddy Bali Reddy and his family. Sid did, however, side with the extended family when the City of Berkeley asked for a boycott of the Pasand restaurant. He taunted the boycotters and gave them his middle finger as a symbol of which side he was on. You can find the photo at http://wassusa.com/pages/Further%20NewsandEvents.html

Igor and Alejandro are men of good conscience and stand up for the rights of the less fortunate.